{"title":"欧洲人权法院和欧洲社会权利委员会近期审理的案件概览(2023 年 6 月至 2023 年 12 月)","authors":"Eleni De Becker","doi":"10.1177/13882627241236488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This case law report discusses two cases before the European Court of Human Rights and two cases before the European Committee of Social Rights. The first case (Pająk and others v. Poland) concerns the introduction of a lower and different retirement age on the basis of sex for judges of the Polish Constitutional Court. In the case X and others v. Ireland, the ECtHR had to examine the extent to which the residence requirement for child benefits violated Article 14 ECHR, read in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR. Child benefits were paid only to claimants who were fully resident in Ireland, and the applicants, who were awaiting a decision on their residency status, did not fulfil this requirement under Irish law. The collective complaint no. 167/2018 (Sindacato autonomo Pensionati Or.S.A. v. Italy) concerned an alleged violation of Article 12 (3) ESC due to the total or partial suspension of the automatic indexation of a large share of pensions in 2011. The measure was extended in 2015 and revised in 2018, taking into account the position of particularly vulnerable persons. In the last case (collective complaint no. 185/2019, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium), the applicants argued that their right to social assistance had been violated, as they had not received social assistance benefits following a police investigation. The ECSR did not go along with the applicants’ claim.","PeriodicalId":44670,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overview of recent cases before the European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee of Social Rights (June 2023 – December 2023)\",\"authors\":\"Eleni De Becker\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13882627241236488\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This case law report discusses two cases before the European Court of Human Rights and two cases before the European Committee of Social Rights. The first case (Pająk and others v. Poland) concerns the introduction of a lower and different retirement age on the basis of sex for judges of the Polish Constitutional Court. In the case X and others v. Ireland, the ECtHR had to examine the extent to which the residence requirement for child benefits violated Article 14 ECHR, read in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR. Child benefits were paid only to claimants who were fully resident in Ireland, and the applicants, who were awaiting a decision on their residency status, did not fulfil this requirement under Irish law. The collective complaint no. 167/2018 (Sindacato autonomo Pensionati Or.S.A. v. Italy) concerned an alleged violation of Article 12 (3) ESC due to the total or partial suspension of the automatic indexation of a large share of pensions in 2011. The measure was extended in 2015 and revised in 2018, taking into account the position of particularly vulnerable persons. In the last case (collective complaint no. 185/2019, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium), the applicants argued that their right to social assistance had been violated, as they had not received social assistance benefits following a police investigation. The ECSR did not go along with the applicants’ claim.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Social Security\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Social Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627241236488\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627241236488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Overview of recent cases before the European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee of Social Rights (June 2023 – December 2023)
This case law report discusses two cases before the European Court of Human Rights and two cases before the European Committee of Social Rights. The first case (Pająk and others v. Poland) concerns the introduction of a lower and different retirement age on the basis of sex for judges of the Polish Constitutional Court. In the case X and others v. Ireland, the ECtHR had to examine the extent to which the residence requirement for child benefits violated Article 14 ECHR, read in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR. Child benefits were paid only to claimants who were fully resident in Ireland, and the applicants, who were awaiting a decision on their residency status, did not fulfil this requirement under Irish law. The collective complaint no. 167/2018 (Sindacato autonomo Pensionati Or.S.A. v. Italy) concerned an alleged violation of Article 12 (3) ESC due to the total or partial suspension of the automatic indexation of a large share of pensions in 2011. The measure was extended in 2015 and revised in 2018, taking into account the position of particularly vulnerable persons. In the last case (collective complaint no. 185/2019, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium), the applicants argued that their right to social assistance had been violated, as they had not received social assistance benefits following a police investigation. The ECSR did not go along with the applicants’ claim.